Comments on: A simple scheme unittest DSL http://phildawes.net/blog/2007/05/23/a-simple-scheme-unittest-dsl/ Mostly programming with a few bits of other stuff Tue, 07 Oct 2008 07:56:04 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.1.1 By: Nat http://phildawes.net/blog/2007/05/23/a-simple-scheme-unittest-dsl/#comment-33053 Nat Wed, 23 May 2007 19:03:23 +0000 http://phildawes.net/blog/2007/05/23/a-simple-scheme-unittest-dsl/#comment-33053 Wouldn't a really Scheme-y macro rewrite the tests to use call/cc to pass the continuation into the test function and rewrite the asserts to call the continuation to jump out of the test when the assert failed? Wouldn’t a really Scheme-y macro rewrite the tests to use call/cc to pass the continuation into the test function and rewrite the asserts to call the continuation to jump out of the test when the assert failed?

]]> By: Phil Dawes http://phildawes.net/blog/2007/05/23/a-simple-scheme-unittest-dsl/#comment-33112 Phil Dawes Thu, 24 May 2007 10:49:41 +0000 http://phildawes.net/blog/2007/05/23/a-simple-scheme-unittest-dsl/#comment-33112 Hi Nat, Actually using continuations was the original plan but it turned out to be more tricky than I'd expected because of syntax-rules macro hygiene. The problem is that the inner assert macro can't just use the symbol for the continuation because it gets masked, so IIRC the outer macro needs to traverse the code re-writing the assert calls to include the continuation as an argument - it was doing that where I came a bit unstuck and switched to the exception hack. Hmmm... maybe I should revisit this. Hi Nat,

Actually using continuations was the original plan but it turned out to be more tricky than I’d expected because of syntax-rules macro hygiene.

The problem is that the inner assert macro can’t just use the symbol for the continuation because it gets masked, so IIRC the outer macro needs to traverse the code re-writing the assert calls to include the continuation as an argument - it was doing that where I came a bit unstuck and switched to the exception hack.
Hmmm… maybe I should revisit this.

]]>